[csaa-forum] But wait, there's more

[Ben Hourigan]

Another response to Tim Langley:

> however, in agreement with catherine, responses must
> be (in this public sphere) measured and unemotional,
> refrained from personal attacks, ad hominem logic and
> academic language,

Agreed.

> these critics’ logic is combative, aggressive or
> ‘hawkish’; they despise (as they have said in relation
> to anti-war protesters) ‘weakness’.

If you mean this as a criticism, you've just engaged in an ad hominem 
(to the man)attack. Address their arguments, not the style in which 
they are presented, unless you're going to argue that the style 
invalidates their logic.

> the conservative government wants to privatize the public broadcasters
> (a proposition a number of howard ministers and
> rightwing jocks have suggested),

Let me register my support for this proposal. I love the ABC, and SBS, 
but it's not right to coerce people into having their earnings taken 
away (i.e. taxation), and then spend it on luxuries, however much you 
or I may appreciate them. Does support for privatisation make one right 
wing? If a commitment to economic freedom (this includes maximum 
freedom from taxation) makes one right-wing, and a commitment to 
government control of economic activity makes one left-wing, then 
you're correct. However, it's not as simple as that. Isn't that what 
you were arguing in a previous post? I get the impression that you 
refer to whoever it is as "rightwing jocks" (another ad hominem attack) 
because of their social values as well as their beliefs about how the 
economy should best be managed.

> these attacks will never end

They may one day, if the left-right dichotomy (and with it, the typical 
attitudes each side holds towards the 'New Humanities') ceases to 
dominate our thinking about politics, and is replaced by some new 
scheme of classification. But then we will have new, different-looking 
debates.

> , and neither should our
> responses.

Again, agreed. Just keep the ad hominem arguments to a minimum.